Publications

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were: i) to assess fragility indices (FIs) of individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared paclitaxel-based drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus standard endovascular devices, and ii) to meta-analyze mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes from available RCT data while also estimating the FI of pooled results.

METHODS: This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO public database (CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). A query of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was performed to identify eligible RCTs. Rates of primary patency (PP) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were assessed as efficacy outcomes, while lower limb amputation (LLA) consisting of major amputation that is. below or above the knee and all-cause mortality were estimated as safety outcomes. All outcomes were pooled with a random effects model to account for any clinical and study design heterogeneity. The analyses were performed by dividing the RCTs according to their maximal follow-up length (mid-term was defined as results up to 2-3 years, while long-term was defined as results up to 4-5 years). For each individual outcome, the FI and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated according to whether the outcome results were statistically significant or not, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ), which are the FI or RFI divided by the sample size, were also calculated.

RESULTS: A total of 2,337 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There were 2 RCTs examining DES devices and 14 RCTs evaluating different DCBs. For efficacy outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased the PP rate and reduced the TLR rate at mid-term, with a calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.66 for patency (95% CI, 1.55-1.86; P < 0.001), with a corresponding number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3 patients (95% CI, 2.9-3.8) and RR of 0.44 for TLR (95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P = 0.027), respectively. Similarly, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy both increased PP and decreased TLR rates at long-term, with calculated pooled RR values of 1.73 (95% CI, 1.12-2.61; P = 0.004) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P = 0.82), respectively. For safety outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased all-cause mortality at mid-term, with a calculated pooled RR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.21-3.24). However, there was no difference between treatment arms in LLA at mid-term (95% CI, 0.1-2.7; P = 0.68). Similarly, neither all-cause mortality nor LLA at long-term differed between treatment arms, with a calculated pooled RR of 0.66, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.31-3.42) and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.30-5.21; P = 0.22), respectively. The pooled estimates of PP at mid-term were robust (FI = 28 and FQ = 1.9%) as were pooled rates of TLR (FI = 18 and FQ = 0.9%). However, when safety outcomes were analyzed, the robustness of the meta-analysis decreased significantly. In fact, the relationship between the use of paclitaxel-coated devices and all-cause mortality at mid-term showed very low robustness (FI = 4 and FQ = 0.2%). At 5 years, only the benefit of paclitaxel-based devices to reduce TLR remained robust, with an FI of 32 and an FQ of 3.1%.

CONCLUSIONS: The data supporting clinical efficacy endpoints of RCTs that examined paclitaxel-based devices in the treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial occlusive disease were robust; however, the pooled safety endpoints were highly fragile and prone to bias due to loss of patient follow-up in the original studies. These findings should be considered in the ongoing debate concerning the safety of paclitaxel-based devices.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb amputation rates in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia vary across the United States, with marked disparities in amputation rates by gender, race, and income status. We evaluated the association of patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics with the intensity of vascular care received the year before a major lower-limb amputation and how intensity of care associates with outcomes after amputation.

METHODS: Using Medicare claims data (2016-2019), beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent a major lower-limb amputation were identified. We examined patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics associated with the intensity of vascular care received the year before amputation. Secondary objectives evaluated all-cause mortality and adverse events following amputation.

RESULTS: Of 33 036 total Medicare beneficiaries undergoing major amputation, 7885 (23.9%) were due to chronic limb-threatening ischemia; of these, 4988 (63.3%) received low-intensity and 2897 (36.7%) received high-intensity vascular care. Mean age, 76.6 years; women, 38.9%; Black adults, 24.5%; and of low income, 35.2%. After multivariable adjustment, those of low income (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.72]; P<0.001), and to a lesser extent, men (odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.98]; P=0.019), and those who received care at a safety-net hospital (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97]; P=0.012) were most likely to receive low intensity of care before amputation. High-intensity care was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality 2 years following amputation (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74-0.85]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were of low-income status, and to a lesser extent, men, or those cared for at safety-net hospitals were most likely to receive low-intensity vascular care. Low-intensity care was associated with worse long-term event-free survival. These data emphasize the continued disparities that exist in contemporary vascular practice.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear.

METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response.

RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence.

CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of real-world data on the in-hospital (IH) and post-discharge outcomes in patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) with adjunctive atherectomy.

AIMS: In this retrospective, registry-based study, we evaluated IH and post-discharge outcomes among patients undergoing PVI, treated with or without atherectomy, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PVI Registry.

METHODS: The IH composite endpoint included procedural complications, bleeding or thrombosis. The primary out-of-hospital endpoint was major amputation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included repeat endovascular or surgical revascularisation and death. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of atherectomy use and its association with clinical endpoints.

RESULTS: A total of 30,847 patients underwent PVI from 2014 to 2019, including 10,971 (35.6%) treated with atherectomy. The unadjusted rate of the IH endpoint occurred in 524 (4.8%) of the procedures involving atherectomy and 1,041 (5.3%) of non-atherectomy procedures (p=0.07). After adjustment, the use of atherectomy was not associated with an increased risk of the combined IH endpoint (p=0.68). In the 6,889 (22.4%) patients with out-of-hospital data, atherectomy was associated with a reduced risk of amputation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.85; p<0.01) and surgical revascularisation (aHR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89; p=0.017), no difference in death rates (p=0.10), but an increased risk of endovascular revascularisation (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39; p<0.01) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of atherectomy during PVI is common and is not associated with an increase in IH adverse events. Longitudinally, patients treated with atherectomy undergo repeat endovascular reintervention more frequently but experience a reduced risk of amputation and surgical revascularisation.

Several studies have shown that women and racial and ethnic minority patients are at increased risk of developing lower extremity peripheral artery disease and suffering adverse outcomes from it, but a knowledge gap remains regarding the underlying causes of these increased risks. Both groups are more likely to be underdiagnosed, have poorly managed contributory comorbidities, and incur disparities in treatment and management postdiagnosis. Opportunities for improvement in the care of women and racial and ethnic minorities with peripheral artery disease include increased rates of screening, higher rates of clinical suspicion (particularly in the absence of typical symptoms of intermittent claudication), and more aggressive risk factor management before and after the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is an increasingly prevalent but frequently underdiagnosed condition that can be associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. While an initial noninvasive approach is the cornerstone of management, revascularization is often pursued for patients with treatment-refractory claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In this review, we discuss the current state of endovascular interventions for PAD and explore the many new emerging technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS: The last decade has resulted in numerous advances in PAD interventions including the ongoing evolution of drug-coated devices, novel approaches to complex lesions, and contemporary evidence from large clinical trials for CLTI. Advances in endovascular management have allowed for increasingly complex lesions to be tackled percutaneously. Future directions for the field include the continued evolution in device technology, continued development of state-of-the-art techniques to revascularization of complex lesions, and increased collaboration between a largely multidisciplinary field.

Several observational studies have compared apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but these analyses may be confounded by unmeasured characteristics. This study used provider prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable (IV) to assess the association between prescriber choice of rivaroxaban vs. apixaban and the study outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, and death in a retrospective cohort of NVAF patients in the US. Initiators of either medication were linked to their prescribers and followed until the first of the study outcome, the end of rivaroxaban/apixaban use, or 365 days after initiation. PPP for each patient was the percent of rivaroxaban initiations issued by the provider for the prior 10 NVAF patients. Cox regression models tested associations between quintiles of PPP and each outcome. A total of 61,155 patients and 1726 providers were included. The IV was a strong predictor of rivaroxaban prescription (OR = 17.9; 95% CI: 16.6, 19.3). There were statistically significant associations between increasing preference for rivaroxaban and rates of major bleeding (ptrend = 0.041) and death (ptrend = 0.031), but not stroke/SE (ptrend = 0.398). This analysis provides evidence of the relative safety of apixaban over rivaroxaban for the risk of major bleeding and death.